I think to make newbies welcomed that all threads should be locked at midnight and restarted the next eday...it's the only way to guarantee they don't feel left out.

Or maybe every 108 minutes

Since TRT picked on me relentlessly at the last live game for this, I figured I'd post a good explanation. This is copied from a post by one of the many well-respected poker posters on two plus two.


Reverse Implied Odds

It’s the first hand of a NLHE tournament. You have AA UTG. Villain has 22 on the button. Who’s in a profitable situation? Villain is. You are never going to win a big pot unless you make set over set, but you will lose a big pot virtually every time he makes his set.

This seems obvious, but it’s an important thing to think about when you have a big hand. Just because you have the nuts doesn’t mean you want any and all action. You want to play big pots against second best hands, not against speculative hands that will either lose small pots or win big ones. I see so many players making tiny raises and re-raises with their rockets, seemingly giving little or no thought to what kinds of hands they want in the pot and what kinds they don’t. Conveniently enough, the kinds of hands that will pay you off big on the right flop are also the sort that can take a fair amount of action pre-flop: other big pairs and broadway hands that can make top pair good kicker.

seke2 wrote:Since TRT picked on me relentlessly at the last live game for this,

2 jokes is relentlessly?!

I kid because I love.

seke2 wrote:Since TRT picked on me relentlessly at the last live game for this, I figured I'd post a good explanation. This is copied from a post by one of the many well-respected poker posters on two plus two.


Reverse Implied Odds

It’s the first hand of a NLHE tournament. You have AA UTG. Villain has 22 on the button. Who’s in a profitable situation? Villain is. You are never going to win a big pot unless you make set over set, but you will lose a big pot virtually every time he makes his set.

This seems obvious, but it’s an important thing to think about when you have a big hand. Just because you have the nuts doesn’t mean you want any and all action. You want to play big pots against second best hands, not against speculative hands that will either lose small pots or win big ones. I see so many players making tiny raises and re-raises with their rockets, seemingly giving little or no thought to what kinds of hands they want in the pot and what kinds they don’t. Conveniently enough, the kinds of hands that will pay you off big on the right flop are also the sort that can take a fair amount of action pre-flop: other big pairs and broadway hands that can make top pair good kicker.

BTW that scenario isnt the same as the example you cited when you first used the term.

I don't even remember what the situation was when I first mentioned it.

Basically, it's just the inverse of implied odds. Your hand has good implied odds when you will usually only win a large pot or lose a small one. Like baby pairs when you're playing most for set value, low suited connectors, etc. Most of the time, you whiff the flop and you're done with the hand. Occasionally, you hit the flop hard and will win a big pot most of the time.

So when you have a hand that will often either lose a big pot or win a small one (which is often the case with big pairs, or top pair/overpair on a draw-heavy flop), you have bad ("reverse") implied odds. You have great pot odds, but you're unlikely to continue winning a lot of chips on later streets because most of the time, your opponents will only continue with the hand if they flop a strong hand. And many times when that happens, you still have a good hand (like you have AA/KK against 55 on a Q85 board) and you will LOSE a lot of chips postflop (there's the reverse, because now you're losing chips, not gaining them).

That same principle can be extrapolated to a lot of situations, and while I don't remember what my example was, it was probably in the same ballpark.

seke2 wrote:I don't even remember what the situation was when I first mentioned it.

Basically, it's just the inverse of implied odds. Your hand has good implied odds when you will usually only win a large pot or lose a small one. Like baby pairs when you're playing most for set value, low suited connectors, etc. Most of the time, you whiff the flop and you're done with the hand. Occasionally, you hit the flop hard and will win a big pot most of the time.

So when you have a hand that will often either lose a big pot or win a small one (which is often the case with big pairs, or top pair/overpair on a draw-heavy flop), you have bad ("reverse") implied odds. You have great pot odds, but you're unlikely to continue winning a lot of chips on later streets because most of the time, your opponents will only continue with the hand if they flop a strong hand. And many times when that happens, you still have a good hand (like you have AA/KK against 55 on a Q85 board) and you will LOSE a lot of chips postflop (there's the reverse, because now you're losing chips, not gaining them).

That same principle can be extrapolated to a lot of situations, and while I don't remember what my example was, it was probably in the same ballpark.

seke your explanation here is gold.... I didn't quite understand you previous explanation, I think you brought up Negraneau in it I believe....

good post....

seke2 wrote:I don't even remember what the situation was when I first mentioned it.

Basically, it's just the inverse of implied odds. Your hand has good implied odds when you will usually only win a large pot or lose a small one. Like baby pairs when you're playing most for set value, low suited connectors, etc. Most of the time, you whiff the flop and you're done with the hand. Occasionally, you hit the flop hard and will win a big pot most of the time.

So when you have a hand that will often either lose a big pot or win a small one (which is often the case with big pairs, or top pair/overpair on a draw-heavy flop), you have bad ("reverse") implied odds. You have great pot odds, but you're unlikely to continue winning a lot of chips on later streets because most of the time, your opponents will only continue with the hand if they flop a strong hand. And many times when that happens, you still have a good hand (like you have AA/KK against 55 on a Q85 board) and you will LOSE a lot of chips postflop (there's the reverse, because now you're losing chips, not gaining them).

That same principle can be extrapolated to a lot of situations, and while I don't remember what my example was, it was probably in the same ballpark.

No it was when you folded a hand in the SB when you couldve limped with a crap hand like 94o and you claimed it had reverse implied odds.

The Red Tornado wrote:

seke2 wrote:I don't even remember what the situation was when I first mentioned it.

Basically, it's just the inverse of implied odds. Your hand has good implied odds when you will usually only win a large pot or lose a small one. Like baby pairs when you're playing most for set value, low suited connectors, etc. Most of the time, you whiff the flop and you're done with the hand. Occasionally, you hit the flop hard and will win a big pot most of the time.

So when you have a hand that will often either lose a big pot or win a small one (which is often the case with big pairs, or top pair/overpair on a draw-heavy flop), you have bad ("reverse") implied odds. You have great pot odds, but you're unlikely to continue winning a lot of chips on later streets because most of the time, your opponents will only continue with the hand if they flop a strong hand. And many times when that happens, you still have a good hand (like you have AA/KK against 55 on a Q85 board) and you will LOSE a lot of chips postflop (there's the reverse, because now you're losing chips, not gaining them).

That same principle can be extrapolated to a lot of situations, and while I don't remember what my example was, it was probably in the same ballpark.

No it was when you folded a hand in the SB when you couldve limped with a crap hand like 94o and you claimed it had reverse implied odds.

Hmm, that might have been retarded of me if that's what I said. But you still should fold 94o.

seke2 wrote:Yes, now you fold any 2 assuming the BB is forced in, I'm pretty sure.

I had some fellow poker nerds take on this hypothetical too. I was close, but the consensus was that mathematically, you can play AA/KK in any of these spots. Those are the only 2 hands that will have greater than 67% equity 3-way, which is why you can play them.

In the scenario where the bigstack can win the all-in but Hero can still win 2nd if he beats the other shortie (equal stacks, hand strength matters between all players), you can call pretty wide, close to top 50%.

You posted my flukey scenario on 2+2?

The Red Tornado wrote:You posted my flukey scenario on 2+2?

Yes, and I was mocked for it, but I got some answers including a couple from posters I actually respect. A few people did actually think it was interesting too. It's more interesting than most WSOP bizarre hypotheticals (which usually involve AA on the first hand and lots of people moving all in, or you have QQ on the first hand and another player moves all in and exposes that he has AK)

yup found the thread

I see that they finally wnet to a much more user friendly bulletin board at 2+2, what a pain in the ass it was reading threads in the old usenet style. I would love to post there but I know I'd get my ass laughed outta there in less than 2 days.

The Red Tornado wrote:yup found the thread

Yeah...Jurollo is real good, he responded. Nicok isn't real well known but he's not a tard. Don't know anything about jgunnip who did the good math response but he's been around 2p2 since 2004 and has 3k posts so he probably is good.

The Red Tornado wrote:I see that they finally wnet to a much more user friendly bulletin board at 2+2, what a pain in the ass it was reading threads in the old usenet style. I would love to post there but I know I'd get my ass laughed outta there in less than 2 days.

eh, that's what i did. but i hung with it and i'm like a 200x better player than i would have been otherwise for it.

plus the various community forums (Other Other Topics, BBV4Life, etc.) are usually good sources of hilariousness and entertainment to help the work day go by faster.

seke, I was busting balls, I know the guy is good. Still, he came off like a douche to an entire group of people who know nothing about him. Probably just his exuberance for the game(and his game) that came out, but he looked rather douchey.

Im sure they editted the interviews to make him look overconfident and co cky as well. Besides if youre a teen and one of the best internet poker players in the world Id think youd'd be a bit co cky at times as well.


Co cky isnt a bad word dammit!!

Let me ax a hypothetical

What's to stop 5 people from joining the same, say, $1000 6 person Sit and Go, knocking out 1 guy, and then splitting his entry cash?

What if they then did the same thing once a week on 5 different poker sites?

Does this sort of stuff happen? I'm sure there are measures in place to prevent things of that nature, but it would have to happen on occassion, no?

Woody wrote:Let me ax a hypothetical

What's to stop 5 people from joining the same, say, $1000 6 person Sit and Go, knocking out 1 guy, and then splitting his entry cash?

What if they then did the same thing once a week on 5 different poker sites?

Does this sort of stuff happen? I'm sure there are measures in place to prevent things of that nature, but it would have to happen on occassion, no?

collusion does happen, but probably not that high scale. They monitor to see if certain people are always playing at the same table to help cut down on that.

WSOP starts today!!


Woohoo!!


The big fad be a big fade?


I recommend checking cardplayer.com for updates and coverage, it's an excellent site.